My best peformance tweak yet (Replace Explorer)

pparks1 said:

zzz2496 said:

He's on Intel SSD, those things ARE FAST.

I know the Intel SSD's are fast..as I have one in my box. But while it can read blazingly fast, it's also got to get it onto the other drive...which will be the slow part. And even if it was going to another Intel SSD...they only write between 70-100MB/s at best...so I still say something is very fishy.

Well, I don't really care about the details... the fact is - the OP has problems with his rig when he copies things. If the facts doesn't add up, but still "understandable", I'd ignore it. BUT the fact that he said it's consuming 4-6GB of memory, that's totally bull crap. I copied a lot more than his and I see a jump of ~500MB. Maybe it's my Harddisk that's too slow, so RAM doesn't have to cache as much, I don't know - I don't have Intel SSD (way too expensive over here). but 4-6GB for 1 GB of file???? Copying the file over to RAM will consume around 1GB + some overhead for pointers, not 4-6GB. There is something that's suspiciously WRONG in his rig. I suspect an AV went berserk... Or some storage driver optimizer of somekind...

zzz2496

zzz2496 said:

Well, I don't really care about the details... the fact is - the OP has problems with his rig when he copies things. If the facts doesn't add up, but still "understandable", I'd ignore it. BUT the fact that he said it's consuming 4-6GB of memory, that's totally bull crap.

My thinking is that he is affiliated with the software package he is touting and might be posting some misleading information to convince others they too have a problem and should also buy the software he is peddling.

Since his file copy times seem to be way off what is likely possible, I highly doubt his RAM usage is accurate as well. That's the point I am making.

pparks1 said:

zzz2496 said:

Well, I don't really care about the details... the fact is - the OP has problems with his rig when he copies things. If the facts doesn't add up, but still "understandable", I'd ignore it. BUT the fact that he said it's consuming 4-6GB of memory, that's totally bull crap.

My thinking is that he is affiliated with the software package he is touting and might be posting some misleading information to convince others they too have a problem and should also buy the software he is peddling.

Since his file copy times seem to be way off what is likely possible, I highly doubt his RAM usage is accurate as well. That's the point I am making.

Hmm... that makes sense too (he got something to do with DO's company?)... I used Directory Opus back in XP days, it's quite good, but nothing special IMHO. I prefer KDE's new Dolphin File manager feature wise over ANYTHING out there, too bad it's not very stable today, and the looks - it's just horrible .

zzz2496

I just did my own little test of Directory Opus.
From SSD1 to SSD2 using DO, 4.08 gig folder took 1:09.57 to copy.
Same test using Windows explorer took 33.04 secs. Less then half the time!
Something seriously wrong with ravingmads conclusions…

win7clutz said:

I just did my own little test of Directory Opus.
From SSD1 to SSD2 using DO, 4.08 gig folder took 1:09.57 to copy.
Same test using Windows explorer took 33.04 secs. Less then half the time!
Something seriously wrong with ravingmads conclusions…

Which is why I suggested him to check his resource monitor, see if anything spikes up in Disk/Memory tab...

zzz2496

win7clutz said:

I just did my own little test of Directory Opus.
From SSD1 to SSD2 using DO, 4.08 gig folder took 1:09.57 to copy.
Same test using Windows explorer took 33.04 secs. Less then half the time!
Something seriously wrong with ravingmads conclusions…

Yeah, that comes out to 59MB/s using 1 and 123MB/s Both seem far more reasonable.